Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bubo bubo on February 03, 2023, 11:11:AM
-
I thought it my be useful to examine another aspect relating to June being shot in bed. June had three exit wounds. One to the knee which had an upward trajectory which entered below the knee and exited above. Bullet 2 entered and exited her right forearm which hit the ulna fracturing it and exited. Bullet three entered the lower neck and exited just above the scapula. This was on a downward trajectory.
The question is this. Two bullets were retrieved from the lower pillow (DRH35) and were numbered DRH35a and DRH35b. Can anyone explain how it was possible for sub sonic bullets to travel though June and the upper pillow and still have sufficient force to enter the lower pillow? Further which wounds were involved that facilitated such a result?
-
I thought it my be useful to examine another aspect relating to June being shot in bed. June had three exit wounds. One to the knee which had an upward trajectory which entered below the knee and exited above. Bullet 2 entered and exited her right forearm which hit the ulna fracturing it and exited. Bullet three entered the lower neck and exited just above the scapula. This was on a downward trajectory.
The question is this. Two bullets were retrieved from the lower pillow (DRH35) and were numbered DRH35a and DRH35b. Can anyone explain how it was possible for sub sonic bullets to travel though June and the upper pillow and still have sufficient force to enter the lower pillow? Further which wounds were involved that facilitated such a result?
Bubo, may I remind you that you are neither ballistics expert nor pathologist. Therefore, such exploration is a complete irrelevance. How would it undermine Miss Mugford's sworn testimony or the sound moderator evidence of ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher or the evidence of his scientific colleagues Glynis Hayward et al? Let alone that of Dr Vanezis' or Professor Knight.
-
Bubo, may I remind you that you are neither ballistics expert nor pathologist. Therefore, such exploration is a complete irrelevance. How would it undermine Miss Mugford's sworn testimony or the sound moderator evidence of ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher or the evidence of his scientific colleagues Glynis Hayward et al? Let alone that of Dr Vanezis' or Professor Knight.
You have not taken into account my qualification from the Trump university.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11600.msg535381.html#msg535381
I actually worked as a systems analyst in its widest sense for 30 years. I like to examine issues and to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Try as I may I cannot make this situation work and am seeking help from members to put my mind at rest.
-
I thought it my be useful to examine another aspect relating to June being shot in bed. June had three exit wounds. One to the knee which had an upward trajectory which entered below the knee and exited above. Bullet 2 entered and exited her right forearm which hit the ulna fracturing it and exited. Bullet three entered the lower neck and exited just above the scapula. This was on a downward trajectory.
The question is this. Two bullets were retrieved from the lower pillow (DRH35) and were numbered DRH35a and DRH35b. Can anyone explain how it was possible for sub sonic bullets to travel though June and the upper pillow and still have sufficient force to enter the lower pillow? Further which wounds were involved that facilitated such a result?
I am not aware that exited bullets DRH/35 x 2 were ever identified as DRH35a and DRH35b?
The bullets have a muzzle velocity of 1040ft/s so hardly surprising some bullets entered and exited the victim and embeded in the pillow especially when you consider the shots were sustained at close range and in an enclosed environment ie no elements to contend with by way of drag.
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
Bullets DRH/35 pertain to the neck wound and one of the other exit wounds (arm/leg) or possibly the non-penetrating graze only wound to the chest.
-
I am not aware that exited bullets DRH/35 x 2 were ever identified as DRH35a and DRH35b?
The bullets have a muzzle velocity of 1040ft/s so hardly surprising some bullets entered and exited the victim and embeded in the pillow especially when you consider the shots were sustained at close range and in an enclosed environment ie no elements to contend with by way of drag.
https://eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow/
Bullets DRH/35 pertain to the neck wound and one of the other exit wounds (arm/leg) or possibly the non-penetrating graze only wound to the chest.
WRONG. Try the below post from Bridget an ex police person and guilt supporter.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2991.msg109715.html#msg109715
If there was a non penetrating wound to June (PV disagrees with you on this), how did it pass magically through June and the top pillow to enter the below pillow. By the way he also disagrees with you about the marks on NB's back. He calls them burns.
You say my theories are ludicrous. It would appear you come from cloud cuckoo land. How could the knee wound figure in this. It seems to me that the trajectory would have seen it hit the wall above the bed.
I used to have a considerable amount of respect for you in previous incarnations. Now you seem to be a game playing embittered malcontent, who has nothing positive to offer and nothing better to do or say except caustic repetitive put downs. What depths have you sunk to. All you can do is play guilter, regurgitating the same old lines and tropes of a born again guilter that we all know so well. Bit by bit the Crown case is being dismantled. It will only take one well crafted innocence/guilty video and together with latest submission the tectonic plates may shift. Some new hard evidence of guilt would be a start.
-
If June was shot in bed and bled on the top pillow i believe there should be drag mark blood staining and what we have is drip staining.
I see no drag stains.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40856;image
What's more the 'below' pillow' is barely visible. I don't care what velocity or closeness the shots were supposedly fired from. I do not believe they could have had enough power to end up in the below pillow.
June would not have just lay there after the first shot or two but would, as a natural reaction, moved away from the shooter and the pillows.
We have all probably watched a crime scene drama when a victim is killed by a head shot. Blood slowly pours on and into the surrounding area. There is no pool of blood by Junes head. Like NB and SC her body and how she died has been staged.
-
If June was shot in bed and bled on the top pillow i believe there should be drag mark blood staining and what we have is drip staining.
I see no drag stains.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40856;image
What's more the 'below' pillow' is barely visible. I don't care what velocity or closeness the shots were supposedly fired from. I do not believe they could have had enough power to end up in the below pillow.
June would not have just lay there after the first shot or two but would, as a natural reaction, moved away from the shooter and the pillows.
We have all probably watched a crime scene drama when a victim is killed by a head shot. Blood slowly pours on and into the surrounding area. There is no pool of blood by Junes head. Like NB and SC her body and how she died has been staged.
Agree that Bamber moved Sheila & Nevill after death.
Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot & a bible/rifle put on her. Nevill was lifted onto the coal scuttle to have good access to his head and back.
But no reason to move June.
-
WRONG. Try the below post from Bridget an ex police person and guilt supporter.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2991.msg109715.html#msg109715
If there was a non penetrating wound to June (PV disagrees with you on this), how did it pass magically through June and the top pillow to enter the below pillow. By the way he also disagrees with you about the marks on NB's back. He calls them burns.
You say my theories are ludicrous. It would appear you come from cloud cuckoo land. How could the knee wound figure in this. It seems to me that the trajectory would have seen it hit the wall above the bed.
I used to have a considerable amount of respect for you in previous incarnations. Now you seem to be a game playing embittered malcontent, who has nothing positive to offer and nothing better to do or say except caustic repetitive put downs. What depths have you sunk to. All you can do is play guilter, regurgitating the same old lines and tropes of a born again guilter that we all know so well. Bit by bit the Crown case is being dismantled. It will only take one well crafted innocence/guilty video and together with latest submission the tectonic plates may shift. Some new hard evidence of guilt would be a start.
Why on earth am I going to put weight on some random poster posting under the username 'Bridget'? What evidence do you have that 'Bridget' was an 'ex police person'? And even if 'Bridget' was an 'ex police person' how does this make 'Bridget' right and/or make the post more credible?
There's no evidence spent bullets DRH/35 were ever referred to as as DRH/35 a and DRH/35/ b. Both referred to as item 46 at the lab. At trial they were referred to as DRH/35 (trial testimony attached).
I am afraid it is you who is WRONG evidenced by the case material:
Burns - Dr Vanezis
"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them"
"Yes"
Bullet wound causing a graze wound to June unrelated to any other wound
"Do you accept, Dr Vanezis, that this could well be a bullet graze wound?
"Yes"
"Not necessarily, I am sorry my lord, not necessarily associated with any other wound to June, but it could, by itself, be a bullet graze wound?
"Yes"
-
If June was shot in bed and bled on the top pillow i believe there should be drag mark blood staining and what we have is drip staining.
I see no drag stains.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40856;image
What's more the 'below' pillow' is barely visible. I don't care what velocity or closeness the shots were supposedly fired from. I do not believe they could have had enough power to end up in the below pillow.
June would not have just lay there after the first shot or two but would, as a natural reaction, moved away from the shooter and the pillows.
We have all probably watched a crime scene drama when a victim is killed by a head shot. Blood slowly pours on and into the surrounding area. There is no pool of blood by Junes head. Like NB and SC her body and how she died has been staged.
If you're unable to understand simple physics ie the velocity of a bullet leaving a rifle at 1040ft/s then I would suggest you get yourself another hobby. Perhaps knitting :P
You are utterly clueless. How do you think the bullets ended up embedded in the pillow if not from gunfire?
-
If you're unable to understand simple physics ie the velocity of a bullet leaving a rifle at 1040ft/s then I would suggest you get yourself another hobby. Perhaps knitting :P
You are utterly clueless. How do you think the bullets ended up embedded in the pillow if not from gunfire?
Of course they came from gunfire. The police fired into the pillow as part of the scene setting for the coverup.
I do understand physics but knowing the initial velocity does not account for the drag caused by passing through a number of materials including hitting a bone hard enough to fracture it.
-
it would all depend on the range if the shooter fired at point blank range the bullets could of gone throuh her and into the pillow
-
Why on earth am I going to put weight on some random poster posting under the username 'Bridget'? What evidence do you have that 'Bridget' was an 'ex police person'? And even if 'Bridget' was an 'ex police person' how does this make 'Bridget' right and/or make the post more credible?
There's no evidence spent bullets DRH/35 were ever referred to as as DRH/35 a and DRH/35/ b. Both referred to as item 46 at the lab. At trial they were referred to as DRH/35 (trial testimony attached).
I am afraid it is you who is WRONG evidenced by the case material:
Burns - Dr Vanezis
"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them"
"Yes"
Bullet wound causing a graze wound to June unrelated to any other wound
"Do you accept, Dr Vanezis, that this could well be a bullet graze wound?
"Yes"
"Not necessarily, I am sorry my lord, not necessarily associated with any other wound to June, but it could, by itself, be a bullet graze wound?
"Yes"
You are being disingenuous again. It is all to do with the questions asked and Rivlin should have complained about leading the witness.
You think people are idiots we all know how lawyers phrase questions to get the answer they want.
In the first instance he was fed.
“In your own mind there is an element (not totally) of mystery about them”
Of course there was a mystery. He knew they were from the AGA but could not say because NB had been moved and he may not have known who did it. Alternatively, he was at a loss to say what caused the burns. He called them burns at autopsy a year earlier.
In the second case he should have asked if he had any idea what had caused this mark. He could have been primed with the corner of a cupboard or the edge of a table and got a yes answer. At autopsy he made no suggestion as to the cause of the mark.
Stop playing games. Bridget was a veteran poster (5000+) and did not leave until 21/10/2013. She was often criticised for being involved with the police and I thought this was well known
-
it would all depend on the range if the shooter fired at point blank range the bullets could of gone throuh her and into the pillow
WE cannot know this but surely she would have moved?
-
You are being disingenuous again. It is all to do with the questions asked and Rivlin should have complained about leading the witness.
FFS...it was Rivlin asking the questions. Even when I go to the trouble of uploading the case material you're unable or unwilling to read/comprehend it.
You think people are idiots we all know how lawyers phrase questions to get the answer they want.
No I don't think people are idiots but I do know you are.
In the first instance he was fed.
“In your own mind there is an element (not totally) of mystery about them”
Well if he was fed it was by Bamber's own defence counsel. You're so utterly clueless you're unable to determine what supports the defence/prosecution.
Of course there was a mystery. He knew they were from the AGA but could not say because NB had been moved and he may not have known who did it. Alternatively, he was at a loss to say what caused the burns. He called them burns at autopsy a year earlier.
In the second case he should have asked if he had any idea what had caused this mark. He could have been primed with the corner of a cupboard or the edge of a table and got a yes answer. At autopsy he made no suggestion as to the cause of the mark.
There's no expert evidence Nevill was moved.
The defence pathologist was adamant the marks on Nevill's back were not burns and the HO pathologist was unsure.
Stop playing games. Bridget was a veteran poster (5000+) and did not leave until 21/10/2013. She was often criticised for being involved with the police and I thought this was well known
I don't care if 'Bridget' made 5 trillion posts it doesn't make him/her right that the two bullets embedded in the pillow were ever formerly identified as DRH/35 a and b.
-
WE cannot know this but surely she would have moved?
Can you not understand basic maths? 1040ft/s. You try moving at that speed!
-
OK he was fed by Rivlin. Just like he fed Bews 'a trick of the light'. It does not matter who fed them the results would have been and were the same.
-
OK he was fed by Rivlin. Just like he fed Bews 'a trick of the light'. It does not matter who fed them the results would have been and were the same.
And you have the audacity to call me disingenuous. You are a complete moron.
-
There's no expert evidence Nevill was moved. That we are aware of at this time.
The defence pathologist was adamant the marks on Nevill's back were not burns. I have already answered this point see below and the HO pathologist was unsure. No he was not he called them burns at autopsy.
Before Rivlin asks the mystery question he asks PV if they were as he described them as burns. PV replied yes. The problem is that they were different from what he and knight had previously experienced.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11541.msg534706.html#msg534706
-
And you have the audacity to call me disingenuous. You are a complete moron.
I am not engaging in any more of your silly games. I'm putting you on the naughty step with Adam.
-
And you have the audacity to call me disingenuous. You are a complete moron.
The questions were fed irrespective who fed them, which is what I was arguing. They still produced predictable answers. They were the wrong questions to ask. This does not meet the criteria for being disingenuous.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11541.msg534706.html#msg534706
Why are you altering my posts to give them a different meaning?
-
Q When is a door not a door A when its ajar. Q When is a burn not a burn A when everyone says they are except CC.
-
Q When is a door not a door A when its ajar. Q When is a burn not a burn A when everyone says they are except CC.
CC and the defence pathologist.
-
I am not engaging in any more of your silly games. I'm putting you on the naughty step with Adam.
You're an idiot.
-
It doesn't matter what the pathologist referred to the marks during autopsy. What counts is how he answered counsel's questions at trial.
-
Why are you altering my posts to give them a different meaning?
Which one? I sometimes crop long posts to answer specific points raised. Please show where this has misrepresented your post.
-
CC and the defence pathologist.
Do not keep asking the same question and expect a different answer. It is a sign of madness. How many times must I tell you that they were burns of a type not experienced before and probably since and that is why they were cautious with their answers. PV declared them burns at autopsy because he did not think at that time that the EP would frame JB. He had to be careful in what he said.
-
Do not keep asking the same question and expect a different answer. It is a sign of madness.
CambridgeAlchie exhibits many signs of madness. :-\
-
Do not keep asking the same question and expect a different answer. It is a sign of madness. How many times must I tell you that they were burns of a type not experienced before and probably since and that is why they were cautious with their answers. PV declared them burns at autopsy because he did not think at that time that the EP would frame JB. He had to be careful in what he said.
Rubbish. Prof Knight for the defence was adamant the marks were not burns.
-
CambridgeAlchie exhibits many signs of madness. :-\
Says he who believes AE wrung out SC's menstrual stained knickers inside the silencer. ;D ::)
-
PV declared them burns at autopsy because he did not think at that time that the EP would frame JB. He had to be careful in what he said.
Dr Caruso also said they were burns.
-
I am not engaging in any more of your silly games. I'm putting you on the naughty step with Adam.
This is CCs long lost brother.. :))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo)
-
This is CCs long lost brother.. :))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo)
Nothing compares to your theory that AE wrung out Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer. Oh and lets not forget your daily drubbing by gringo ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Dr Caruso also said they were burns.
Firstly Dr Caruso was working off images. Secondly he was not cross-examined. Thirdly he concluded he needed to undertake further work to form a conclusive opinion.
-
CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -
"I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin."
Bernard Knight in his examination - "I think that they are deep abrasions from prodding, but I must admit that it is not a very firm opinion"
Dr Caruso - . "In my professional opinion, the three wounds sustained by Mr. Ralph Bamber (located in the midline of the back with the most superior wound at the base of the neck line), are consistent in size, shape and diameter with a threaded end of a Model 525 Anschutz Rifle barrel heated sufficiently to cause burn injury."
To argue on the contrary you have to state - "Well, they just so happen to be the same shape and size of the murder weapons barrel and it just so happens the victim was found next to an oven that was turned on to heat the barrel up. The wounds can be replicated by pressing the headed murder weapon onto pig skin, but that's just another coincidence on top of all the rest. And I have no valid alternative explanation for what they are."
-
CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -
"I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin."
Bernard Knight in his examination - "I think that they are deep abrasions from prodding, but I must admit that it is not a very firm opinion"
Dr Caruso - . "In my professional opinion, the three wounds sustained by Mr. Ralph Bamber (located in the midline of the back with the most superior wound at the base of the neck line), are consistent in size, shape and diameter with a threaded end of a Model 525 Anschutz Rifle barrel heated sufficiently to cause burn injury."
To argue on the contrary you have to state - "Well, they just so happen to be the same shape and size of the murder weapons barrel and it just so happens the victim was found next to an oven that was turned on to heat the barrel up. The wounds can be replicated by pressing the headed murder weapon onto pig skin, but that's just another coincidence on top of all the rest. And I have no valid alternative explanation for what they are."
You just cherry pick whatever fits with your crazy theories.
A book author interviewing an expert a quarter of a century later isn't the same as a lawyer cross examining at trial surely even you can see this?!
Dr Vanezis at trial cross examined by Rivlin QC:
"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them?" Dr Vanezis: "Yes".
Prof Knight at trial:
"I am not sure what they are but they are not burns".
This is Bamber's own defence counsel! Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!
Judicial review's decision over CCRC's rejection of Dr Caruso's evidence:
22. The commission dealt with this issue at paragraphs 356 to 359. In very brief summary and it is important for anyone looking again at this matter to look at these paragraphs in full, the commission concluded that there was insufficient to show that a hot rifle could have caused these marks. His report went no further than saying it was consistent with a heated barrel, but it did not address other mechanisms. The Commission considered that it was unlikely that the barrel could have heated sufficiently to cause the marks. The report of Dr Caruso did not deal with the evidence at trial.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fd2c94e0775e7ef811
Note the judicial review judges correctly describe the marks as marks and not burns.
-
You just cherry pick whatever fits with your crazy theories.
A book author interviewing an expert a quarter of a century later isn't the same as a lawyer cross examining at trial surely even you can see this?!
Dr Vanezis at trial cross examined by Rivlin QC:
"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them?" Dr Vanezis: "Yes".
Prof Knight at trial:
"I am not sure what they are but they are not burns".
This is Bamber's own defence counsel! Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!
Judicial review's decision over CCRC's rejection of Dr Caruso's evidence:
22. The commission dealt with this issue at paragraphs 356 to 359. In very brief summary and it is important for anyone looking again at this matter to look at these paragraphs in full, the commission concluded that there was insufficient to show that a hot rifle could have caused these marks. His report went no further than saying it was consistent with a heated barrel, but it did not address other mechanisms. The Commission considered that it was unlikely that the barrel could have heated sufficiently to cause the marks. The report of Dr Caruso did not deal with the evidence at trial.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fd2c94e0775e7ef811
Note the judicial review judges correctly describe the marks as marks and not burns.
Try not to highlight only those words which support your position
-
This is Bamber's own defence counsel! Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!
Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened. Accuracy. True events.
-
Try not to highlight only those words which support your position
Other mechanisms was referring to the silencer! The defence was attempting to show the marks on Nevill's back were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer. Dr Caruso referred to the barrel of the rifle but did not say why he excluded the silencer.
-
Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened. Accuracy. True events.
Yes I agree.
-
Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened. Accuracy. True events.
Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄
-
Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄
Since you are so fond of retrieving posts perhaps you would like to retrieve one that refers to the above?
-
Other mechanisms was referring to the silencer! The defence was attempting to show the marks on Nevill's back were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer. Dr Caruso referred to the barrel of the rifle but did not say why he excluded the silencer.
You cannot claim that other mechanisms only applied to the silencer. Other in this context could mean the silencer but it could also mean anything else.
-
Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄
I would like to see it too. I share her view that the lab manipulated the blood in the silencer evidence (see my posts). Even without using the blood samples at the lab MF had access to SC's blood when he received PV20 from Taylor. It had blood in the receptacle I also do not understand how RWC could dismantle the silencer before sending it to the lab and not find the 'flake'.
-
You cannot claim that other mechanisms only applied to the silencer. Other in this context could mean the silencer but it could also mean anything else.
The silencer was 2.5cm in diameter where as the barrel was only 1cm. Its also worth mentioning that Malcom Fletcher believed they were burns caused by the barrel also, its written in his notes. Something that was never disclosed to the defence at trial.
Just for the record I have seen the CCRCs reasons against Caruso and I am not convinced by their counter arguments at all. It has not changed my view. :)
-
Firstly Dr Caruso was working off images.
This a typical fallback position regarding any marks that have been revaluated as a result of images which were fought over for release being examined. If we take this approach, we might as well say that in any case, once a pathologist has determined what is or isn't present on a deceased person's body, that determination can never be challenged at a later date. Sorry but this is silly, not realistic and unworkable in terms of pathology governance.
-
I also do not understand how RWC could dismantle the silencer before sending it to the lab and not find the 'flake'.
He goes into detail about this handwritten COLP notes. Unfortunately mike uploaded photos of these notes in very poor lighting and are illegible. Hopefully NGB1066 can upload them at some stage should he get a chance.
-
This a typical fallback position regarding any marks that have been revaluated as a result of images which were fought over for release being examined. If we take this approach, we might as well say that in any case, once a pathologist has determined what is or isn't present on a deceased person's body, that determination can never be challenged at a later date. Sorry but this is silly, not realistic and unworkable in terms of pathology governance.
Of course,well said Roch.
-
This a typical fallback position regarding any marks that have been revaluated as a result of images which were fought over for release being examined. If we take this approach, we might as well say that in any case, once a pathologist has determined what is or isn't present on a deceased person's body, that determination can never be challenged at a later date. Sorry but this is silly, not realistic and unworkable in terms of pathology governance.
That's your opinion. The courts will take the view that the opinion of the pathologist who undertook the pm's and saw the victims in-situ will take precedence over all others. And since under cross examination Dr Vanezis concluded the marks were a "mystery" I am afraid that's the end of that!
No idea why supporters are so keen for the marks to be burns?
-
Of course,well said Roch.
Roch is wrong.
-
The silencer was 2.5cm in diameter where as the barrel was only 1cm. Its also worth mentioning that Malcom Fletcher believed they were burns caused by the barrel also, its written in his notes. Something that was never disclosed to the defence at trial.
Just for the record I have seen the CCRCs reasons against Caruso and I am not convinced by their counter arguments at all. It has not changed my view. :)
Malcolm Fletcher is not an expert in burns/pathology and not in a postion to give an opinion.
The CCRC wil be relying on the evidence at trial from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.
-
I would like to see it too. I share her view that the lab manipulated the blood in the silencer evidence (see my posts). Even without using the blood samples at the lab MF had access to SC's blood when he received PV20 from Taylor. It had blood in the receptacle I also do not understand how RWC could dismantle the silencer before sending it to the lab and not find the 'flake'.
There's no evidence the relatives dismantled the silencer.
-
He goes into detail about this handwritten COLP notes. Unfortunately mike uploaded photos of these notes in very poor lighting and are illegible. Hopefully NGB1066 can upload them at some stage should he get a chance.
The flake was loose and not stuck to a baffle plate. I recall (but I may be misremembering) that the flake only manifested itself after JB's Blood expert's first report which at that stage stated the minute amounts of blood could not be 'typed' but on finer testing for particular 'signatures' it could be a mixture from NB and June.
-
The flake was loose and not stuck to a baffle plate. I recall (but I may be misremembering) that the flake only manifested itself after JB's Blood expert's first report which at that stage stated the minute amounts of blood could not be 'typed' but on finer testing for particular 'signatures' it could be a mixture from NB and June.
You are misremembering.
-
There's no evidence the relatives dismantled the silencer.
I agree but why attribute this to my thinking. The only evidence would appear to be DRB saying he tried to unscrew the end cap.
-
You are misremembering.
Give us the facts about what happened then.
-
That's your opinion. The courts will take the view that the opinion of the pathologist who undertook the pm's and saw the victims in-situ will take precedence over all others. And since under cross examination Dr Vanezis concluded the marks were a "mystery" I am afraid that's the end of that!
No idea why supporters are so keen for the marks to be burns?
That's more about attempting to protect the reputation of Vanezis than it is about finding the truth.
Harold Shipman probably diagnosed his victims. That doesn't mean his findings shouldn't be challenged.
-
Roch is wrong.
So you are saying that it's not possible to later challenge through the courts a pathologists findings.. because 'the pathologist was working from the body and not just from photographs'.
I think you are making this up as you go along. Your adherence to original experts' findings is like some blind-spot adoration.
-
The silencer was 2.5cm in diameter where as the barrel was only 1cm. Its also worth mentioning that Malcom Fletcher believed they were burns caused by the barrel also, its written in his notes. Something that was never disclosed to the defence at trial.
Just for the record I have seen the CCRCs reasons against Caruso and I am not convinced by their counter arguments at all. It has not changed my view. :)
Be careful David. MF was a ballistics expert (so called) not a burns expert. He was re-enforcing the EP line to make JB look cruel
-
Be careful David. MF was a ballistics expert (so called) not a burns expert. He was re-enforcing the EP line to make JB look cruel
That makes no sense considering he withheld this information.
-
Be careful David. MF was a ballistics expert (so called) not a burns expert. He was re-enforcing the EP line to make JB look cruel
Where in MF's trial testimony does he refer to the marks on Nevill's back?
Do you not understand that what's important is what was adjudicated on at trial.
-
Give us the facts about what happened then.
What did your last slave die of?
-
So you are saying that it's not possible to later challenge through the courts a pathologists findings.. because 'the pathologist was working from the body and not just from photographs'.
I think you are making this up as you go along. Your adherence to original experts' findings is like some blind-spot adoration.
Why do you think when Rivlin QC examined Prof Knight the first thing he did was confirm with Prof Knight that he did not have the benefit of seeing the bodies and was working from photos only?
Had anyone thought the case was contentious at the time the defence may well have instructed a pathologist to reexamine the bodies but was too late as by the time it turned the bodies had been cremanted.
I am simply going along with how the courts will view all of this now.
-
What did your last slave die of?
Off topic and as you said to me.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10881.msg502359.html#msg502359
-
Why do you think when Rivlin QC examined Prof Knight the first thing he did was confirm with Prof Knight that he did not have the benefit of seeing the bodies and was working from photos only?
Had anyone thought the case was contentious at the time the defence may well have instructed a pathologist to reexamine the bodies but was too late as by the time it turned the bodies had been cremanted.
I am simply going along with how the courts will view all of this now.
I understand your point.
-
What did your last slave die of?
My slave is alive and well. I was right when I said that JB's blood expert had to concede after the flake was brought into play.
I set out his first and second reports. the first 28/05/86. The second 19/09/86 follows if you scroll down one page.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200905.html#msg200905
So after his first report when no mention of flake evidence is presented to him he is presented with new evidence about 4 months later and says.
"explanations set out in my previous letters cannot be entertained"
The flake sealed the deal.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10160.msg492392.html#msg492392
l